 Mae'racer pawr yn Lorry Ffwrn cullant. Fodd i chi'n iawn. Gweithio'r cyfleid, jydym o'r cyfГelio, rydym yn yr cwlir Cymru yw gennyn nhw Draeth Mlyn Mlŷn. Gweithio'r cysylltedig, gennyn nhw. Felly, dwy ni'n fyddwch i'r ffordd yn yna. Rwy'n cael ei gondol arweinyddio'r iawn, o'r hyn sy'n cydw surpriseach, i ddechrau'r cynnw. Mae'r ffordd yn ymddangos i wreille iawn That's Why to Dare to take it on 7, 8, 9 and 10 on private..? We are, thank you for that. Moving to agenda item 2, we are taking evidence from Kevin Stewart MSP the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care on the National Care Service Scotland Bill at stage one. And the minister is accompanied today by two Scottish Government officials and Anna Kiniston, Deputy Director National Care Service, Mark Richards, Head of Social Care Legal Services Unit, welcome you all to the meeting please. Remind all attendees not to worry about turning on their microphones during the session. Those are being controlled by broadcasting. First of all, I would like to invite the minister to make some opening remarks please. Thank you and thanks to the committee for asking me along to give evidence today and happy new year to all. It's fair to say that the national care service is one of the most ambitious reforms of public services. It will end the postcode lottery of care provision across Scotland and ensure that those who need it have access to consistent and high quality care and support to enable them to live a full life wherever they are. People with experience of receiving social care support and providing it are clear that significant reform is needed despite the changes that have been made over the last 20 years. We have excellent legislation and policies but a gap in actually putting them into practice. The NCS bill sets out a framework for the changes that we want to make and allows people and allows scope for further decisions to be made in collaboration with those most affected by them, the people. This flexibility will enable the NCS to develop, adapt and respond to new circumstances over time but it is important that we start by establishing the principle of transferring accountability for social care to Scottish ministers. The principles of any new system will be person-centred, ensuring that the NCS will be delivered in a way that respects, protects and fulfills the human rights of people accessing care support and those associated such as carers. We are also fully committed to improving the experience of staff in the social care sector as we recognise and value the work that they do. Our co-design process will ensure that the national care service is built with the people that it serves and those that deliver it at its very heart. Thank you very much, convener. Thank you very much indeed for that opening repost, if I could put it that way, if that makes any sense. Okay, so I'd like to invite members to ask questions and I think I'll start off myself. Actually, I have a question here just to kick us off. Minister, your response to the committee, which we received, acknowledges that much of the detail of this bill will be set out in secondary legislation, but that it was important to obtain parliamentary agreement to the principle of creating the national care service. Can you explain why the Scottish Government considers that it is important to obtain parliamentary agreement at this point and, in particular, could you set out why it is considered necessary to obtain this endorsement through the passage of the bill? Convener, as we have said all along, we want to ensure that the national care service is the best that it can possibly be. To do that, we need people to be involved in the co-design of the national care service. I talked to my opening remarks about the implementation gap that exists. We have done a lot of good work in recent years and have been on a journey when it comes to social care integration over the past two decades. There has been a lot of good legislation, but we have always been left with the implementation gap. To fill that gap, what we need to do is co-design to ensure that those folks who are in receipt of care, those folks who work in care and those folks who are carers are at the heart of helping us to design the future national care service. In order to ensure that we have effective co-design, we have to ensure that the principles of the bill are in place so that those folks who will be co-designing with us have the knowledge that their work will lead to actions. Felly, do you have any alternative approaches considered, or was I always the direction that was going on? Some other committees have suggested that we could have done it the other way around, convener, having the co-design first. However, what I would say to that is that it would have impinged on the amount of folk who would have been involved in that co-design. The co-design work might have all gone to waste in the eyes of people if the Parliament changed far too much what the folks who were helping us to design actually wanted to see in place. It is right to have the framework bill, to have the principles of the bill in place and to move it on in collaboration and co-operation with people to co-design this very important work and this extremely important change in our public service delivery. That seems reasonable. Paul, did you have something that you wanted to throw in there? You said that it would potentially be the Parliament that would interfere with what people with lived experience might want, but surely it is the role of Parliament as the ultimate democratic body in the land to be the arbiter of that matter, not ministers. Absolutely. I do not disagree with that. Parliament will make changes along the way in terms of this bill. I am quite sure, Mr Sweeney. One of the things that stakeholders feel is that they have not been listened to enough. By doing it this way, they feel that they are being listened to. They recognise that the principles of the bill will be in place and then we will move on into that co-design process. They recognise that as we move forward, when we come to secondary legislation, there will be further consultation and there may well be changes that take place. However, I think that we needed to set out the general framework to gain the confidence of people to get them to take part in the co-design process. I do not want to speak for others, convener, but it would be fair to say that many of the disabled people's organisations, for example, feel that they have not been listened to enough over that journey period in terms of social care integration. We need to take those folks with us. That is why co-design is so important, and that is why it is so important that we have the framework in place before we start that co-design process. Good morning, minister, happy new year to you and to your team. Just by picking up that point by my colleagues, as you know, this is the delegated power. We will see delegated powers come before us. As you vary away and know, they cannot be altered, they can only be voted for and against. If Parliament likes three quarters of what you have done but does not like the rest of it, it is left with the option of saying no completely or voting for something that they do not have confidence in. How does that give democratic accountability to MSPs who cannot amend regulations? Mr Balfour has heard me question about such issues at other committees as well. What I want to ensure, as always in any of the legislation that I have been involved in, is to ensure that there is full collaboration, co-operation and communication at every stage of that. I will have an open door in terms of listening to what MSPs have to say, but also listening to what stakeholders and people have to say about that. If I can maybe outline the co-design stages, which I think are extremely important, first of all, understanding co-design, sense making, agreeing, drafting the regulations and then consultation on those regulations. We have said that we want folk to be involved at every single stage of that, and I am very sincere in all of that. We will do so. My door is always open in that regard. I accept, minister, that you have an open door policy, but I suppose that you have not fundamentally answered the question. That is, when it comes to that final decision, Parliament has no option to amend those regulations. We have to accept them or reject them. Why could we not do it in a way that this could be done on the primary legislation where we can listen to stakeholders along with yourselves and then MSPs can come to a view on what—do you not accept that you are keeping MSPs away from that process or being able to amend things that will affect our constituents across Scotland? No, and one of the reasons why we have taken that approach in terms of the use of secondary legislation—I should say, convener, that this is exactly the same way as the national health service was dealt with at its inception, a framework bill with regulations. The reason for doing that this way is that Mr Balfour is aware—I will probably bore him by repeating myself from other committees—that by using secondary legislation for a number of areas we have the ability to change legislation much more quickly. One of the things that we have found over the years in our journey in terms of social care integration is that we have put good legislation in place, as I have said previously, but we have had an inability to amend that legislation when we find out that there has been flaws or loopholes that have not been right in terms of service delivery. That will give us the ability to be much more flexible in terms of making those amendments when we require. In terms of the use of secondary legislation, it is not quite as black and white as Mr Balfour has said. There are other alternative means, as members of the committee well know, when it comes to secondary legislation. As I have said to others, I am more than willing to consider how we approach that secondary legislation as we move forward. Oliver Mundell. I have heard the point that the minister has made regarding an open door policy. I have always found the minister easy to work with on issues over my time in the Parliament, but part of the problem here is that, with the best will in the world, you cannot guarantee that you will be the minister making the decisions. We look time and time again at this when we are considering other powers in legislation. The promises that you make today are only as good as the time that you spend in this particular office. My worry is that we are handing over quite wide-ranging powers to ministers on a very significant piece of legislation. Ordinarily, you would expect this type of legislation to have much more detail on the face of the bill. Do you not think that that is a problem? No, I do not. I am not so chuffed that Mr Mundell has tried to get me out the door at the very start of the new year. I will not go there, convener. One of the things about all of this is that this is all about people. We are going to be guided by people in terms of that co-design. We are going to be guided by stakeholders in terms of that co-design. I am sure that all of us around the table, whether we are supportive of the national care service proposal or not, recognise that people need to be at the very heart of this. I think that we need to do something a little bit different here and put our trust and faith in people themselves. As I continue to say, one of the reasons why social care integration has not been the best that it possibly can be thus far is because of implementation gaps. In that co-design, I am quite sure and absolutely convinced that, with people's help, we can get those implementation gaps filled and we can do it right. Beyond that, as I have said earlier too, in order to be flexible, in order that we can put things right at a far greater pace, it is much better putting some of that into secondary legislation than primary legislation. Again, as I have said at previous committees, I am more than willing to listen to others across the parliamentary chamber as we move forward around about stage 2 amendments that may work. One of the things that I would appeal to members, as I have done to other committees as well, is to listen to the voices of lived experience here. Listen to what they have to say about where things have worked for them and where they have not. I think that that would maybe change the views of some folk around about using secondary legislation to be much more adaptable in meeting the needs of folk out there. I hear what you are saying. I do have trust in faith in people. My question that I asked myself is whether I have trust in faith in Government ministers to listen. What you are asking us to do is put a huge amount of trust in faith in Government ministers to do that listening rather than the Parliament itself. There are certainly a number of organisations, including the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, that question whether that approach is appropriate, the Faculty of Advocates question whether that approach is appropriate, the Care Inspectorate question whether there is enough information to know how it is going to work in practice. That is not getting off to a good start in building confidence, is it? There are a number of organisations that have been sceptical about aspects of the bill. That surprises me now. As I have said at other committees, there are organisations that have a vested interest in all of that, but let me spell that out because it can be clearer. The principle is made clear how the Scottish Government, how Scottish ministers must act. We will put human rights at the very heart of all that we do. We want to embed fair work practices and we want to ensure that ethical commissioning is in place. All of that is about improving health and wellbeing of people. That is what the bill is about. Can I ask why it surprises you that organisations would be—not on the substance of the bill, but on the process—why it surprises you that organisations would be concerned about the appropriateness of the bill that you are presenting to the Parliament? Some folk want to see everything on the face of the bill. That is the way that some folk see the way forward. It is not the way that people themselves out there see as the best way because, as I have explained earlier, when everything is on the face of the bill in primary legislation, that means that it is not so easy to change that legislation. One of the examples that I have given other committees is about the Self-Directed Support Bill, or the Self-Directed Support Act. Again, it was a piece of legislation that was supported by all. However, in terms of implementation, that has not been so easy. I recently changed the guidance to Self-Directed Support to give more clarity around what people's rights should be and what the responsibility of the public services are. There are loopholes that have been used to ensure that folks have not been able to access all of the rights that the bill was intended to give them in terms of freedom and responsibility. If many pieces of that bill had been in secondary legislation, that would have been much easier to change and to put right, but that is not the case. What we want to do in terms of the delivery aspects of that is to use secondary legislation to allow that flexibility as we move forward if we find that things are not working appropriately for people and if we find flaws. I think that that is a good way to go. It is a different way from many other bills that have been passed here in recent years. I will come back to the point that the framework bill method was the one that was used to formulate the national health service. I think that we can all agree that that has been a bit of a success. Further to your previous comments, I can ask what vested interests you think the Faculty of Advocates and the Aquatic and Human Rights Commission have in raising concerns about the appropriateness of the framework bill. I have not made any comment about the Faculty of Advocates. I suggested to you in my previous question that they had concerns about the appropriateness of the mechanism for bringing this bill forward, and you replied saying that some of the organisations that have been critical of the bill have vested interests, but you are not referring to their evidence on their equality and human rights commission evidence? I have not named them and I am not saying that they are necessarily vested interests. However, we know that they are vested interests. So why do the Faculty of Advocates and the Aquatic and Human Rights Commission have concerns about a framework bill? That is a matter that you will have to bring up with them, because I cannot answer for the Faculty of Advocates or anyone else. I have read submissions from all organisations, Mr Mundell, but if you want me to reflect on their submission at this moment, I cannot do so because I do not have it in front of me. In all fairness, I think that you would understand that I cannot remember every single submission that I have seen. I accept that. I just think that it is concerning that we have organisations that most people would accept do not have a direct vested interest in the legislation, who are experienced in how legislation works and who regularly have interacted with the Parliament's legislative process across the past two decades, who are questioning on a major piece of legislation the appropriateness of the method that the Government has chosen. The committee has a role to play in reporting on secondary legislation and it is worrying to me that we have major organisations questioning not the substance of the bill but the approach that the Government has taken. It is a big risk to ask Parliament to go forward with what you describe as a novel approach, which seems entirely based on trusting ministers to listen. I do not think that that is the experience of people across the country. It is not about trusting ministers, convener. It is about trusting people. That is why we are doing this differently. It is about putting our faith in the people to help us to get this absolutely right in terms of filling those implementation gaps. It is different from the way that we normally do things, but it is the right thing to do here in terms of this major public service reform because, as I have explained earlier on, one of the things where we have not done well in terms of our integration journey is filling those implementation gaps. In order to get that right to end postcode lotteries and to ensure the right service delivery for folks, we need the help of people to do that. Thank you very much, and thank you Oliver, and thank you Minister for the responses. I have been listening to what you have been talking about and it takes me back to our guideline with my own constituency and the differences that there are across Scotland, and how, as you have talked about, it is all about the people. We need to get a consistent approach for social care across Scotland, and the health and wellbeing are at the centre of that. We have been talking a lot about how the legislation has been structured. The legislation clearly has to be clear and accessible legislation, and I am interested to know your responses to creating the legislation before the policy that you are consulting directly with the people who it is going to serve, and how you consider that the bill is clear and accessible. I would say that the bill is clear and accessible, and there were a suite of accompanying documents with the bill when it was lodged with Parliament as well, including the policy memorandum, which gives a huge amount of detail around what our ambitions and visions are. Unfortunately, not everybody reads the policy memorandum, and I would urge those folks out there to do so, and for all members to do so as well. In terms of how we got to that place, which is what Ms Mintw is driving at, we wanted to hear from as many folks as possible during the consultation period, especially from those folks who are in receipt of care, those who access care, their carers and, of course, the front-line staff. As well as the consultation itself, we have had a huge amount of events as part of that national care service consultation. Over 100 engagement events and meetings, and I am listening more importantly to around 3,000 folks from right across the country, including our remote rural and island communities, which I know of interest to Ms Mintw. We published the independent consultation on all those findings in February of last year, and all of that and other discussions helped us to build to the draft bill, to the policy memorandum documents and the other suite of documents. At every single stage, we have listened to folks. We have built on the recommendations that were put forward by Derek Feeley in the independent review of adult social care, and we have done all that we can to engage with as many folks as possible, and we will continue to do that right the way through the process. Thank you, minister, for that response. It moves on to my next question, which is about how well-equipped the public are in understanding what this legislation is going to change social care for them. It would be interesting to get your thoughts on how engaged the wider public has been and how we ensure that parliamentarians know exactly what the changes will be. As I have said all along, we will be open and transparent all through this process. We are putting together lived experience expert panels prior to the Christmas break, I think over 400. I am looking at Ms Kiniston there, and she is nodding. She had applied to join those panels along with stakeholder groups. In terms of the lived experience expert panels, we are making them as accessible as we possibly can. We know that some folk will be able to be involved in group work in terms of putting their views forward, but we also know that some folk will prefer one-to-ones. We know that we have to ensure that the panels are accessible for all. Those folks with sensory impairments, folks with learning disabilities and the list goes on. We are committed to doing that as we move forward. In terms of the wider public, we will continue to promote our vision for the national care service as we carry on through the process. We ran over the summer five public engagement sessions to explain what the bill means to people. We have published Q&As. We have ran three introduction to co-design events at the end of this year. That is about how co-design will work and what co-design is. If any member feels that there is more that we can do in that front, I am more than happy to listen, as Ms Minto knows, because she and others have approached me about what all of that means for communities in Argyll and Bute, and I am more than willing to have those conversations with any member or anyone, really. Paul, please. Thank you, minister, for your responses so far and to your team for the support. It has certainly been an interesting discussion, convener. A point that has been raised so far and has been a consistent point is that it is quite difficult for Parliament, as a democratic body, to adequately scrutinise a piece of legislation when there is a lack of detail in the face of the bill. I know that the minister has referred to the 1947 NHS act, which had 81 sections and 90 pages in length. The current bill that is proposed currently has 38 pages and 48 sections. There is a quite significant difference. I would ask him what safeguards exist in the bill to ensure adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the Scottish Government's policy proposals. As I have said at numerous committees now, I want to be open and transparent here. I want and welcome scrutiny of the bill and I will welcome scrutiny of the secondary legislation. Mr Sweeney and many others want the answers to all of the questions now. Now, if I start answering all of the questions now, that makes a mockery of the co-design process. I recognise that parliamentarians—I have asked those questions myself from that side of the table. Everybody wants to know everything in the here and now. We have got to have faith here in people. We have got to have faith in the co-design process. I know that it is different, but it is the right thing to do in terms of the public service reform. It is absolutely important that we give people and stakeholders the ability to help us to shape the national care service, which has to be fit for the future. We have a future with changing demographics, so we have to take all of that into account, too. I would ask Mr Sweeney not to ask me for all of the answers now to wait and see what comes out of the co-design process and what answers the people come up with in terms of shaping the NCS. I think that we are all keen to hear what stakeholders have to say, minister. The question is what role does Parliament have in that discussion. That is the concern that we have. It is not about the qualitative aspects of what we want to do. It is about Parliament's role in that exercise. I am interested in the point that you make about gathering that information. Certainly, Mary Alexander, the deputy regional secretary of the United Trade Union, had suggested previously to the health committee last year that the Government had already collected enough evidence of the changes that are needed within the care sector. What would your response be to those kind of suggestions and evidence to other committees that the co-design approach may well present a risk to robust parliamentary scrutiny, but that it is potentially a duplication of work that the Government has already undertaken? Let me cover off Mr Sweeney's points about parliamentary functions. Parliamentary functions are already set out in legislation in schedule 3. The bill does not need to set out that detail. In terms of co-design being a risk, I recognise that some folks think that co-design is a risk, but I would say that it is a huge opportunity. It is an opportunity that has not been taken before. In hindsight, it is probably wrong that that opportunity was not taken before, because, as I have said to the committee in our 20-year journey of legislation, this Parliament has done a lot of good in making changes in terms of social care, health and social care integration. However, we still have those implementation gaps. We still have the postcode lotteries. We have, as many folk out there perceive it, a real unfairness in terms of service delivery. We need to get rid of those implementation gaps, we need to get rid of those postcode lotteries and we need to get rid of that unfairness. The best people to help us to do that are the folks who are receiving care in a day-to-day basis, their carers and front-line staff. That is why I see co-design as an opportunity, because those folks will be at the very heart of that co-design. What assurance can you provide to workers that this co-design process will begin promptly? Can you give them that their recommendations will be listened to by ministers and what role could Parliament have in ensuring that that is done? As I have already said in the beginnings of the process, we have already had the workshops that I spoke about earlier, and we will move forward in bringing folk with us in order to get that right. What guarantees do folk have that they will be listened to? They will be listened to. However, I think that the committee will understand that not every single person will get what they want. We have to weigh up what is brought forward. However, what I would say to the committee is that we need, we must listen to stakeholders, to the voices of lived experience and we must listen to staff. I have spent a lot of time over the past year and a half or so, since I have been in this job, listening to front-line staff. There is no one in the committee that would disagree that we do know or have not valued front-line social work and social care staff the way that we should over the peace. That is why, at the heart of the bill, it is fair work and that is not just about pay but also about conditions. However, the other aspect of that is some of the things that we do not necessarily think about unless we listen to those in the front-line. For example, we do not attract enough young people to come and work in social care. They do not see it as an attractive opportunity. That is not necessarily just about paying conditions. A number of them have told me that it is also because they do not see the career pathways. We have work going on, for example, looking at what career pathways we can put in place to ensure that we can attract folk for the future, making it easier for folk to transfer, move from social care to social work, or social care to the NHS, or the other way around, which is often quite an arduous process. Again, by listening, we are coming up with new ways forward in order to get that right. There is absolutely no doubt, convener, that in order to have the social care service that we need for the future, we have to make changes. We have to make changes on those paying conditions, on career pathways, on ethical procurement, and we have to value the front-line staff more than there has been over the past few decades. I think that a lot of the detail that you alluded to is critical to both the strategic plan of the national care service and local care boards plans for delivery. However, at a macro level, the Parliament still will be only able to address much of the bill's provisions in secondary legislation, so it will only have that opportunity, as it was alluded to by my colleague, to approve or reject in a binary fashion any significant policy proposals, rather than having the chance to debate and propose amendments in a more nuanced fashion to any of those policy provisions. I think that that is a real concern in terms of the opportunity for Parliament to engage with this process in a constructive way. Could the minister perhaps offer a view on how that might be improved? As I have said at previous committees, and as I said earlier on in my answer to Jeremy Balfour, my door is open, and, as I have said to other committees, I will consider the views of committees on how we can be as open and transparent as we possibly can as we move forward. Briefly, if I may, on one point, where it might be specific to the opportunity for Parliament, and you mentioned Parliament, certainly at the main area where it is mentioned in the draft bill, as I can see it, is in section 12 on the provision of a national care service charter, which should be reviewed at a five-yearly interval, or at least five-yearly interval, would there be an opportunity for Parliament perhaps at those junctures to have a role in ratification of the charter, or perhaps have an opportunity to propose amendments to that charter? That would be the fundamental overarching document that would create the kind of fundamental principles. Scottish ministers currently, as in the draft, only lay before Parliament a copy of the charter and any subsequent changes. It is not giving any mechanism for the Parliament to have any role in engaging with it. It is merely a presentation exercise. Would there be an opportunity perhaps through the charter for Parliament to have more of an ongoing engagement with the amendments? As I have said to the committee, I want everybody to be engaged in those processes. I hear what Mr Sweeney has said there. I will reflect on that and consider how we may be able to improve the scrutiny of that as we move forward. I do not want to labour this point, but I think that you hit the nail on my head in your previous answer there. No one here is at all critical before we all welcome the stakeholder engagement, the consultation and the co-design. Everyone thinks that that is a great way forward, but the issue is that, as you said, ultimately decisions will have to be made. You cannot let everybody have what exactly they want because there will be conflict. The issue for this committee is that why do you think that it is appropriate? Once you have done all that consultation, once you have had all that open door, once you have all discussed, but, ultimately, why do you think that it is appropriate for the Scottish Government to decide which view to take on board, rather than the Scottish Parliament, to do the same listening exercise and then to come to a view? If I could refer Mr Balfour back to my earlier response about co-design, it is not just ministers deciding because those co-design stages, as I said, five stages. The third one is agreeing with people around how we move forward. We know that there are going to be polarised views. We know that everything that every single person wants is possible, but stage 3 of that co-design is agreement. Again, co-design stages understand that there is a sense making, agreeing, the drafting of regulations and the consultations on those regulations. There is a huge amount of opportunity there. If I could maybe move on to a couple of specifics within my bill. That is section 15 of the bill, a match for complaints process. Can you explain why is it considered appropriate that the Scottish ministers rely on where you are doing it? I described in your response a veto and not have a veto for the Scottish parliamentary corporate body. Why are we taking away the power of the Parliament in regard to this? We will co-design a complaints and redress service for the NTS that ensures accountability to people. Again, co-design will take place with people with lived experience and to hear their experiences of accessing and providing social care support and with partners and stakeholders who will be involved in the implementation, including the Scottish Parliament corporate body and the PSO. No decisions on implementation have been taken as co-design will inform that. However, the bill ensures that there is an obligation on Scottish ministers to establish a service for receiving and allocating complaints about services provided by the NTS. That is section 14 of the bill. Ministers have regulation making powers to provide for the handling of relevant complaints, including improving and strengthening how complaints about NTS and wider social care services are handled and associated redress processes will have to be put in place. The regulation making power requires that Scottish ministers secure the consent of the Scottish Parliament corporate body before laying any draft regulations that would modify or remove functions of an SPCB-sponsored body. That is section 154 of the bill. That is similar, so it is not identical to provision under section 19 of the Public Services Reform Scotland Act 2010. The key difference is that under that act, the provision must first be requested by the SPCB. It is considered an appropriate balance for the control and scrutiny of the NTS complaint system that Scottish ministers can propose appropriate provisions following co-design. The SPCB has the power of veto through withholding consent, if that is what it wishes to do. Subject to consent, detailed provision is set out in subordinate legislation, subject to parliamentary scrutiny through affirmative procedure. I hope that lays out for Mr Balfour those processes. I would hope that the Scottish Parliament corporate body would take cognisance of the views of the people in the co-design process in order that we get this complaints and redress process right for all. In terms of the views of the general public on all of those matters, I have been struck at how folks have felt at points that they have not been able to complain or seek redress because of a fear that services may be withdrawn. We have to ensure that that fear, whether it is perceived or not, goes. We have to make sure that there is a complaints and redress system that works for all. I hope that we can all co-operate together the people, the SPCB, ministers, the Parliament, the ombudsman and others in order that we get this right as we move forward. We do not have that situation where folks fear seeking redress or even putting in complaints. I absolutely shall not, Mr Balfour, the trouble is that we do not know what that complaint system is going to look like. We have no idea because you have not had your co-design meetings, because you have not discussed it. I do not quite understand why you could have had those meetings or even had those meetings now, come up with a scheme that you have got consensus on amongst the stakeholders, and then put that into the primary part of the bill. As you have pointed out previously, there will be people, even with all your consultation, that will not be happy with what you have come up with with your final recommendation. I am still struggling to work out why that should not be on the face of a bill with MSPs, the Parliament, making a decision of whether it is going to work or not. You seem to be asking us to say that you will get this absolutely right. If I can just come up with a second question about that, you mentioned in one of your previous answers to me that there are other ways that the Parliament can deal with secondary legislation rather than just saying yes or no to it. I am not aware of those. Could you explain those further to me, please? I think that your clerks could explain those much better than I. There are other processes that are rather affirmative or negative instruments, but I am no expert in those. I appreciate that you do not want to give the answer today. Could you then write to the committee with that? I am generally confused in regard to what other processes—I appreciate that I have only been here a fairly short time compared to others—but I am generally confused about what other processes you are talking about. If you are not able to outline them today, could you then write to the committee to outline what those processes are so that we can have that information? I think that those are questions for your clerks rather than for me, convener. I think that I am saying that the clerks nodding their head there. You are absolutely right that clerks will put things together when we receive them, but we would appreciate it if it is possible for a response to be written to us to cover Mr Dalfour. In relation to what, convener, you said to me previously that the only way that regulations can be dealt with is by either voting for them or against them when they cannot be amended, and you said that there are other processes that committees can use to do with those. I was just looking for clarification of what those other methods that other committees in the Parliament can do except to either vote for or against regulations. Well, there are other processes other than just the affirmative and negative instruments, but I think that the clerks are in a better position to explain those than me. Right. Well, one thing then. I think that the clerks, as I say, are very willing to be able to compile, put all this together. Is it possible that your officials may be able to put some pointers together and send them on to us in terms of that, because you did mention that it is not just this committee but other committees as well who may actually be putting such issues together? In order that this committee and its members would be able to satisfy the concerns that they have, if we could have direction, that would be grateful. My officials will speak to the clerks offline about this. I think that, conveners, it is probably the best way of dealing with it in the first instance, because I do not really know what you are asking of me. If you are asking me to write about parliamentary processes, I do not see that as my job, quite frankly. In terms of this particular bill, that is what we are actually looking for. Let us be trying to be helpful to everybody here. It is possible that, if your officials and the clerks could work to put those issues together, we could bring them back to this committee at the next meeting or thereafter and hopefully be able to satisfy it. If there are any new questions that come out of that, we could take them forward. Would that be possible, please? I am more than willing to outline and write all the processes that we are bringing forward. In terms of parliamentary processes, that is best dealt with by your clerks, but I am more than happy for my officials to talk to the clerks about this issue. Thank you, and I will ask the minister a very specific point. Is it possible for Parliament to amend Government regulations? No, the Parliament does not have the power to amend regulations that are laid, and it can either accept them or reject them. In affirmative situations, obviously, there is an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise them in a way that is more detailed than with a negative instrument. Most of the powers in the bill are subject to affirmative procedure. That is very helpful. That has always been my understanding that, although Parliamentarians can speak to ministers, raise points and do other things to try to impact the wording of regulations, they have no power to change what they say. That is a fundamental concern, which differs from primary legislation, where any member of the Parliament can put forward proposed changes to the wording of a bill. That would lead on to a final question, which is that MSPs can only amend what is on the bill. If we have less information on the face of the bill, there is therefore less opportunity to amend the wording, which dictates the meaning of the legislation. Is that correct, minister? I have said that, all the way through, we will continue to listen to Parliamentarians when it comes to the secondary legislation. Mr Mundell and others are used to the processes of primary legislation and are able to amend at stages 2 and 3. I recognise that many folks are very comfortable with all that. That would not work in terms of co-design. That would blow co-design out of the water. We want to ensure that we have people at the very heart of the shaping of this national care service. We want to ensure that we have the flexibility to be able to make change where that is necessary in what is an ever-moving world when it comes to the delivery of social care. As we move forward, I will look at any amendments that are put forward at stage 2 of the bill, which are within the scope of the bill, and we will again have that open door policy to discuss those issues with members. You have deliberately limited the scope of the bill by going down this method. There are limited opportunities for MSPs to amend the legislation when it comes to the detail, because you have put it all to one side for later. That is not a proper parliamentary process. It does not allow for the Parliament to do its job properly of holding you to account. That creates a real risk and danger for people who are reliant upon the legislation. I do not think that we can say that the Parliament or the Government have a very good record when it comes to delivering for many of the people impacted by the legislation. It just seems wrong that you are asking us to put so much confidence and trust in a process where there will be no scrutiny at the end of the day. If people disagree with what you are doing, you will be able to go ahead and put it forward anyway. That does not allow Parliament to do its job. I do not see how, as a member of the Parliament, as a minister in the Government, you can think that that will lead to effective co-design or robust legislation. It is just wrong. I would disagree with Mr Mundell. This is the seventh committee that I have been at, so I think that there has been a fair amount of scrutiny. I think that one of the things about less is the co-design process. What I want to do, what I have and what I want others to have is faith in the people, the voices of lived experience, carers, those who work in the front line. Have faith in them because they will help us to shape a service that is fit for the future. That was one or two areas that we need to have wider scope in looking into, but I thank you very much to yourself and to your officials for attending. We will be in touch again, no doubt. I wish you all a happy new year and we will see you back here again at some point in the future. We just briefly suspend the meeting and allow our guests to leave. Thank you very much. Under agenda item 3, we are considering an instrument subject to the made affirmative procedure. No points have been raised on SSI 2022-375 as a committee content with this instrument. Under agenda item 4, we are considering an instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. An issue has been raised on the draft First Tier Tribunal for Scotland transfer of functions of the Council Tax Reduction Review Panel Regulations 2023. The instrument transfers the functions of the Council Tax Reduction Review Panel to the First Tier Tribunal and makes consequential amendments. The committee identified an incorrect cross-reference in regulation 94 brackets 3 of the Council Tax Reduction Scotland Regulations 2021 as substituted by paragraph 2 brackets 5 of the schedule 2 of the instrument. The Scottish Government confirmed that the cross-reference is an error and proposes to rectify it in the instrument when made as an error that could be corrected by correction slip. Full details of the error can be found in paper 3 on the committee's webpage. Does the committee wish to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground in respect of a cross-referencing error? At the same time, does the committee wish to note the Scottish Government's proposal for rectifying this error? Under agenda item 5, we are considering six instruments subject to the negative procedure. Issues have been raised on three of these instruments. Again, full details of the issues can be found in paper 3 on the committee's webpage. The first instrument is SSI 2022-364, the First Tier Tribunal for Scotland local taxation chamber brackets rules of procedure, clause brackets regulations 2022. The instrument lays down the rules of procedure that are to apply in the local taxation chamber, which is a new chamber of the First Tier Tribunal for Scotland. The committee identified various errors with the regulations. Firstly, the preamble cites an enabling power that is not in fact relied upon for making the instrument and which, if it had been relied upon, would have required the instrument to be laid under a different procedure. The Scottish Government proposes to rectify this error by way of a correction slit. Secondly, the committee also identified a number of cross-referencing errors in rules 20 brackets 4, 26 brackets 2A and 265, 27 brackets 1B and 27 brackets 2A3. A drafting error in regulation 26 brackets 2A and that the definition in rule 1 of respondent could be clearer as to the types of appeal to which it relates and that rule 20 could be clearer as regards what expenses the tribunal can award. The Scottish Government has committed to addressing these points in an amending instrument before the regulations come into force. Does the committee wish to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament under the general reporting ground in that the preamble cites an enabling power that is not in fact relied upon for making the instrument and which, if it had been relied upon, would have required a procedure to be laid under a different procedure? Does the committee wish to note that the Scottish Government proposes to rectify this error by correction slit? Does the committee wish to welcome that the Scottish Government undertakes to review that point for the future to make sure that a consistent approach is taken to these instruments? We are not finished yet. Regulations 2021 as substituted by paragraph. Does the committee wish to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground in respect of 1 cross-referencing errors in rules 20 brackets 4, 26 brackets 2i, 265, 271b and 272a3 and an error in regulation 26 brackets 2i? Does the committee wish to welcome the Scottish Government's intention to correct these points in anemending instrument before the regulations come into force? Does the committee also wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the reporting ground h, meaning that it could be clearer, in that i, or 1, the definition in rule 1 of respondent could be clearer as to the types of appeal to which it relates and to rule 20 could be clearer as regards whether the tribunal may make an order awarding expenses as taxed or whether it can only award a specified sum and what expenses the award may cover given the different provision in this regard made in sub-paragraphs 3 and 5. Finally, does the committee wish to welcome that the Scottish Government intends to clarify the meaning of these points in rules 1 and 20 by amending instrument before the regulations come into force? The second instrument where issues have been raised is the SSI 2022-365, the upper tribunal for Scotland local taxation rules of procedure regulations 2022. That instrument makes the upper tribunal for Scotland local taxation rules for procedure 2022. The committee identified some minor drafting errors in schedules 1 and 3. The Scottish Government has committed to correcting those errors by way of amending instrument before the regulations come into force on 1 April 2023. Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground h on account that the meaning of rules 31 and 32 could be clearer? Does the committee wish to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament under the general reporting in respect of the three referencing errors in schedule 3? Does the committee wish to welcome that the Scottish Government intends to bring forward an amending instrument before it comes into force on 1 April 2023? The final instrument where issues have been raised is SSI 2022-371, the official controls and import conditions transitional periods, miscellaneous amendments Scotland regulations 2022. That instrument amends the official controls extension of transitional periods regulations 2021 and commission decision 2022 to extend the transitional staging periods, which apply in relation to the import of animals and goods that originate from certain third countries and territories from 31 December 2022 to 31 January 2024, under section 28, brackets 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010. Instruments subject to the negative procedure must be laid at least 28 days before they come into force, not counting recess periods of more than four days. The instrument breaches this requirement as it was laid on 14 December 2022 and came into force on 1 January 2023. In correspondence with the Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government stated that this breach had occurred due to UK Government delays in agreeing policy, which resulted in the Scottish Government pursuing separate Scottish legislation. Does the committee wish to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground GIE for failure to comply with laying requirements? The instrument had not been laid at least 28 days before it came into force, as required by section 28, brackets 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010. At the same time, does the committee wish to note the reasons for the breach and refer those to the lead committee? No points have been raised on SSIs 2022, 372, 373 and 377, as a committee content with those instruments. Under agenda item 6, we are considering an instrument not subject to any parliamentary procedure. No points have been raised on SSIs 2022, 376, so is the committee content with this instrument? I think that we should move the committee into private.